More academics demand that space activity be controlled and regulated, by them
Modern academia, proudly marching with Lenin!
Yesterday I linked to a student newspaper article at the University of Alberta advocating more regulation over all space activity, focused on replacing private ownership with collective ownership while simultaneously imposing Marxist racial quotas to get rid “old white men”.
Today there was another story from academia demanding similar regulation. On January 12, 2024 there was a public panel discussion at Arizona State University (ASU), where four academics argued for the need for more government regulation of space. The description of the panel’s goals at the event’s website gives us a good hint of the goals of these academics:
Space exploration and utilization is a rapidly expanding sector, and there is growing consensus that the complex space governance system must evolve with it. Faced with this dynamic nature, in this fireside chat, with leading experts in space governance, policy law and space science, we present a clear framework for conceptualizing the space governance system as a tool for discussions on space law and policy, demystifying its structure and the actors, instruments and collaborations within it. We then consider key debates in the space policy field within this framework from a global and transdisciplinary perspective.
This is typically bad academic writing, designed to intentionally hide its meaning. One of the panelists however translated it most bluntly in this quote from article about the event:
Delgado López is an international affairs fellow of the Council on Foreign Relations at the Center for Strategic and International Studies. She discussed how one of the main hindrances in the way of space governance is the lack of regulation surrounding the topic. “Law and regulation isn’t necessarily catching up,” Lopez said in an email.
Another panelist, Lindsey Wiser, who is a Ph.D student at ASU’s School of Earth and Space Exploration, apparently wants regulation of what private citizens or companies can mine in space.
“We’ve also talked about, for example, protection of space environments versus the expansion into space environments. So, protection of the lunar surface, or the Martian surface, or asteroids or even orbit protection of those space environments,” Wiser said in an email. “We want to do science free from contamination. We want to keep them available to all.”
In other words, government should strictly control mining, and regardless, everything should belong to everyone anyway.
Winer and other panelists were also worried about the new satellite constellations being launched, and wanted to regulate or restrict them if possible.
“Timiebi [Aganaba, the panel moderator] and I had talked about quite a bit … about mega-constellations and satellite contamination versus a pristine sky, and the different stakeholders engaged with that,” Wiser said at the seminar. “There are lots of really fantastic pros, with the idea of large satellite constellations getting access and communication to more people around the world. There are downsides for astronomy, or for communities and cultures that value having a pristine sky without seeing satellite streaks going across it.”
Aganaba is an assistant professor at Arizona State University. Based on a podcast interview from two years ago and available here, she seems to have little understanding of the real (and vastly overstated) impact of these satellite constellations on astronomy. She also seems to think that astronomers have a fundamental right to a dark sky, superseding the rights of everyone else. The idea that maybe astronomers should look for other options (such as telescopes in space above the satellites) completely eludes her.
She also appears somewhat obsessed with race. As she noted in that podcast, “We need to be more inclusive.” Though she did not say so directly, she clearly placed a higher priority on race, not achievement. Something must be done to make sure blacks get a slot in space, even if they have done nothing to earn it.
All these quotes, as well as Aganaba’s interview, revealed to me an amazingly shallow perception of the space industry by these academics. They each tend to spout out word salads based on cliches, with no real understanding of the facts with any depth. Often this shallowness causes them to actually misstate facts.
This shallowness illustrates why these people and their ideas should never be allowed anywhere near any space regulatory body. All they apparently do is sit in their ivory towers on college campuses, arguing how they know best. Such activity should never be considered the right reason for giving great power to someone.
Yet, we must fear them, because without doubt they will be enlisted by the power-brokers in government to create new regulation. It is what these power-brokers want, and these academics are ready and willing to give it to them.
Readers!
Please consider supporting my work here at Behind the Black. Your support allows me the freedom and ability to analyze objectively the ongoing renaissance in space, as well as the cultural changes -- for good or ill -- that are happening across America. Fourteen years ago I wrote that SLS and Orion were a bad ideas, a waste of money, would be years behind schedule, and better replaced by commercial private enterprise. Only now does it appear that Washington might finally recognize this reality.
In 2020 when the world panicked over COVID I wrote that the panic was unnecessary, that the virus was apparently simply a variation of the flu, that masks were not simply pointless but if worn incorrectly were a health threat, that the lockdowns were a disaster and did nothing to stop the spread of COVID. Only in the past year have some of our so-called experts in the health field have begun to recognize these facts.
Your help allows me to do this kind of intelligent analysis. I take no advertising or sponsors, so my reporting isn't influenced by donations by established space or drug companies. Instead, I rely entirely on donations and subscriptions from my readers, which gives me the freedom to write what I think, unencumbered by outside influences.
You can support me either by giving a one-time contribution or a regular subscription. There are four ways of doing so:
1. Zelle: This is the only internet method that charges no fees. All you have to do is use the Zelle link at your internet bank and give my name and email address (zimmerman at nasw dot org). What you donate is what I get.
2. Patreon: Go to my website there and pick one of five monthly subscription amounts, or by making a one-time donation.
3. A Paypal Donation or subscription:
4. Donate by check, payable to Robert Zimmerman and mailed to
Behind The Black
c/o Robert Zimmerman
P.O.Box 1262
Cortaro, AZ 85652
You can also support me by buying one of my books, as noted in the boxes interspersed throughout the webpage or shown in the menu above.
Modern academia, proudly marching with Lenin!
Yesterday I linked to a student newspaper article at the University of Alberta advocating more regulation over all space activity, focused on replacing private ownership with collective ownership while simultaneously imposing Marxist racial quotas to get rid “old white men”.
Today there was another story from academia demanding similar regulation. On January 12, 2024 there was a public panel discussion at Arizona State University (ASU), where four academics argued for the need for more government regulation of space. The description of the panel’s goals at the event’s website gives us a good hint of the goals of these academics:
Space exploration and utilization is a rapidly expanding sector, and there is growing consensus that the complex space governance system must evolve with it. Faced with this dynamic nature, in this fireside chat, with leading experts in space governance, policy law and space science, we present a clear framework for conceptualizing the space governance system as a tool for discussions on space law and policy, demystifying its structure and the actors, instruments and collaborations within it. We then consider key debates in the space policy field within this framework from a global and transdisciplinary perspective.
This is typically bad academic writing, designed to intentionally hide its meaning. One of the panelists however translated it most bluntly in this quote from article about the event:
Delgado López is an international affairs fellow of the Council on Foreign Relations at the Center for Strategic and International Studies. She discussed how one of the main hindrances in the way of space governance is the lack of regulation surrounding the topic. “Law and regulation isn’t necessarily catching up,” Lopez said in an email.
Another panelist, Lindsey Wiser, who is a Ph.D student at ASU’s School of Earth and Space Exploration, apparently wants regulation of what private citizens or companies can mine in space.
“We’ve also talked about, for example, protection of space environments versus the expansion into space environments. So, protection of the lunar surface, or the Martian surface, or asteroids or even orbit protection of those space environments,” Wiser said in an email. “We want to do science free from contamination. We want to keep them available to all.”
In other words, government should strictly control mining, and regardless, everything should belong to everyone anyway.
Winer and other panelists were also worried about the new satellite constellations being launched, and wanted to regulate or restrict them if possible.
“Timiebi [Aganaba, the panel moderator] and I had talked about quite a bit … about mega-constellations and satellite contamination versus a pristine sky, and the different stakeholders engaged with that,” Wiser said at the seminar. “There are lots of really fantastic pros, with the idea of large satellite constellations getting access and communication to more people around the world. There are downsides for astronomy, or for communities and cultures that value having a pristine sky without seeing satellite streaks going across it.”
Aganaba is an assistant professor at Arizona State University. Based on a podcast interview from two years ago and available here, she seems to have little understanding of the real (and vastly overstated) impact of these satellite constellations on astronomy. She also seems to think that astronomers have a fundamental right to a dark sky, superseding the rights of everyone else. The idea that maybe astronomers should look for other options (such as telescopes in space above the satellites) completely eludes her.
She also appears somewhat obsessed with race. As she noted in that podcast, “We need to be more inclusive.” Though she did not say so directly, she clearly placed a higher priority on race, not achievement. Something must be done to make sure blacks get a slot in space, even if they have done nothing to earn it.
All these quotes, as well as Aganaba’s interview, revealed to me an amazingly shallow perception of the space industry by these academics. They each tend to spout out word salads based on cliches, with no real understanding of the facts with any depth. Often this shallowness causes them to actually misstate facts.
This shallowness illustrates why these people and their ideas should never be allowed anywhere near any space regulatory body. All they apparently do is sit in their ivory towers on college campuses, arguing how they know best. Such activity should never be considered the right reason for giving great power to someone.
Yet, we must fear them, because without doubt they will be enlisted by the power-brokers in government to create new regulation. It is what these power-brokers want, and these academics are ready and willing to give it to them.
Readers!
Please consider supporting my work here at Behind the Black. Your support allows me the freedom and ability to analyze objectively the ongoing renaissance in space, as well as the cultural changes -- for good or ill -- that are happening across America. Fourteen years ago I wrote that SLS and Orion were a bad ideas, a waste of money, would be years behind schedule, and better replaced by commercial private enterprise. Only now does it appear that Washington might finally recognize this reality.
In 2020 when the world panicked over COVID I wrote that the panic was unnecessary, that the virus was apparently simply a variation of the flu, that masks were not simply pointless but if worn incorrectly were a health threat, that the lockdowns were a disaster and did nothing to stop the spread of COVID. Only in the past year have some of our so-called experts in the health field have begun to recognize these facts.
Your help allows me to do this kind of intelligent analysis. I take no advertising or sponsors, so my reporting isn't influenced by donations by established space or drug companies. Instead, I rely entirely on donations and subscriptions from my readers, which gives me the freedom to write what I think, unencumbered by outside influences.
You can support me either by giving a one-time contribution or a regular subscription. There are four ways of doing so:
1. Zelle: This is the only internet method that charges no fees. All you have to do is use the Zelle link at your internet bank and give my name and email address (zimmerman at nasw dot org). What you donate is what I get.
2. Patreon: Go to my website there and pick one of five monthly subscription amounts, or by making a one-time donation.
3. A Paypal Donation or subscription:
4. Donate by check, payable to Robert Zimmerman and mailed to
Behind The Black
c/o Robert Zimmerman
P.O.Box 1262
Cortaro, AZ 85652
You can also support me by buying one of my books, as noted in the boxes interspersed throughout the webpage or shown in the menu above.
I take all of this push back is concern (on their part) that capitalism is getting too successful, and they want to re-assert control.
I mean, if people start to believe that they can do things without the complete permission of the government, what else will they try?
(heavy sarcasm).
Related:
COLLECTIVISM LEADS TO POVERTY
“ALL forms of socialism and or collectivism no matter how moralized, presented, shined up, packaged and sold to the masses can only result in authoritarian do as you are instructed rule. There is no progress in “progressivism”.
Read the rest and share with an idealistic confused Democrat friend……
https://www.sigma3ioc.com/post/president-javier-milie-collectivism-leads-to-poverty
everything should belong to everyone anyway.
That’s what they think, but it ends up as “you’ll own nothing and (you had better) be happy.”
She also seems to think that astronomers have a fundamental right to a dark sky, superseding the rights of everyone else.
Translation: those other people are clearly there to personally profit, so their rights are subordinate to the pursuit of “pure science”.
Just another expression of Progressive disdain for the making of an honest profit … that as a by-product brings economic benefit that enables the pursuit of science … in favor of “non-profit” entities that may not generate profit-and-loss statements, but engage in career-building and activism from which they personally profit.
All of the above, derived from the hubris that Only They have All the Answers.
As is always the case in the continuous war between individual rights and collective ones, Jester has nailed the fundamental premise at work determining driving the logical “strategy” of the collectivists. It is the premise that it is all of us who own all of Existence that must be rejected if freedom is to eventually prevail!
Failure to defeat this idea of collective ownership of the universe will mean that none of us will own anything, and that a few of us will become politically empowered to act as if they do!
Once again, in what has become an endless series of confirmations of her prescience and wisdom, Ayn Rand “nailed it” long before the rest of us did!
You do the work and the smart set will exercise ownership rights on the results. Kinda reminiscent of the plantations of the antebellum South.
It’s not about “space law and policy, demystifying its structure and the actors, instruments and collaborations within it”, it’s about expanding communism.
They’ll do the same thing to space that environmentalists have done to the environment.
We’ve spent trillions of dollars “saving the planet” and this is what we got:
“Another Greenbelt Destroyed in Democrat Hellhole Austin [VIDEO]”
https://rumble.com/v47qhde-another-greenbelt-destroyed-in-democrat-hellhole-austin.html
(34 second video)
They will come after you next
https://phys.org/news/2024-01-math-rightwing-populism-easy-confidence.html
https://phys.org/news/2024-01-individual-carbon-footprints.html
https://arstechnica.com/tech-policy/2024/01/youtube-profits-from-videos-claiming-global-warming-is-beneficial/
https://techxplore.com/news/2024-01-stratospheric-safety-standards-aviation-ai.html
https://techxplore.com/news/2024-01-africa-chance-green-electricity.html
https://phys.org/news/2024-01-france-rare-atlantic-fishing-dolphins.html
https://phys.org/news/2024-01-reveals-dating-psychology-incels.html
https://phys.org/news/2024-01-central-banks-climate-role-sustainable.html
https://phys.org/news/2024-01-economic-growth-good-health.html
And yet–we need to rethink simple water
https://phys.org/news/2024-01-molecule-discovery-contradicts-textbook.html
Now we question common sense?
https://phys.org/news/2024-01-common-view.html
https://phys.org/news/2024-01-sociologist-explores-perceptions-street-safety.html
This might lead to blood guilt
https://medicalxpress.com/news/2024-01-benefit-precision-medicine-based-raceethnicity.html
Dave wrote: “You do the work and the smart set will exercise ownership rights on the results. Kinda reminiscent of the plantations of the antebellum South.”
Democrats then. Democrats now. It has always been their philosophy. Spread the wealth from the workers to the leisured. It is the marxist way: from those according to their ability, and to those according to need. Some people turned out to be needier than others.
We no longer have a Democratic party but an Autocratic party.
They eventually want everyone to get a base minimum wage from the government and to replace the manual laborers with robots.
Another word for robot is slave. They are just showing their true colors by trying to turn this whole nation into their new plantation.
pzatchok is correct – the author of RUR (“Rossum’s Universal Robots”) coined the word from the Czech word for slave.